President Bush is planning to announce a return to the Moon (and the establishment of a permanent base thereon) and a mission to Mars:
White House - AP President Bush (news - web sites) will announce plans next week to send Americans to Mars and establish a permanent human presence on the moon, senior administration officials said Thursday night.
Bush won't propose sending Americans to Mars anytime soon; rather, he envisions preparing for the mission more than a decade from now, one official said.
In addition to proposing the first trip to the moon since December 1972, the president wants to build a permanent space station there.
This is all by way of some "unnamed senior officials," so we'll see if anything comes of it. But there have been rumblings of this for some time. If the President's proposal really does involve Mars, it will come as good news to our friend Robert Zubrin. And if it involves someone other than NASA being responsible for creating the infrastructure, Rand Simberg will be pleased. If the plan works for Professor Hall, too, we'll have ourselves a hat trick.
I must admist that I'm pretty psyched about it, whatever the details turn out to be.
UPDATE: Okay, the rush of excitement is over. Rand is underwhelmed by the idea. His skepticism resonates. And check out the very interesting discussion in the comments section.
Posted by Phil at January 8, 2004 10:28 PM | TrackBackBy the current details, the plan doesnt work for anyone who has read and understood O'Neills High Frontier. Not because of particular chosen destinations, but because of lack of vision.
Posted by: nobody at January 9, 2004 06:06 AMOpinions about the rumored plan should be held in abeyance until, and if, Bush actually presents it. Let's see how this plays out.
That said, it seems place a higher priority on pushing their favorite economic agenda than on actual accomplishments in space. A lot of the folks at Rand's blog are calling this "Apollo 2" and rejecting it because it doesn't turn human space travel over to the nascent private space industry. I don't understand that. The private space industry has yet to put anyone in space, and it economic assumptions remain unproven. I'm sure that if there really is money to be made, someone will do that. In the meantime, I'm not prepared to turn human space exploration over to the like of Jeff Bezos and Paul Allen.
Posted by: billg at January 9, 2004 07:31 AMThat said, it seems place a higher priority on pushing their favorite economic agenda than on actual accomplishments in space. A lot of the folks at Rand's blog are calling this "Apollo 2" and rejecting it because it doesn't turn human space travel over to the nascent private space industry. I don't understand that. The private space industry has yet to put anyone in space, and it economic assumptions remain unproven. I'm sure that if there really is money to be made, someone will do that. In the meantime, I'm not prepared to turn human space exploration over to the like of Jeff Bezos and Paul Allen.
Just remember that the single largest barrier to doing anything in space is launching something to orbit. You're right that currently the private industry isn't capable of launching people into space. But what happens in ten years when they can put people into orbit? Shound NASA continue to use it's own specialized launch systems (and complex of contractors) to the exclusion of available private launch capability?
>>...what happens in ten years when they can put people into orbit? Shound NASA continue to use it's own specialized launch systems (and complex of contractors) to the exclusion of available private launch capability?
No, of course not. The government should not prevent private space initiatives simply to preserve an artificial NASA monopoly.
I don't doubt that private sector space efforts can match, or surpass, the technological achievements of NASA, But, the jury is still out -- hasn't even been selected, actually -- on their economic vitality. I have no taste for abandoning space travel while we wait to see if a few startups can actually make money and grow into a real industry. (Rather than the 21st Century equivalent of barnstorming pilots offering 30-minute rides to "space" to rich customers.)
But, the primary case that needs to be made now is for human space travel itself. That case is far from widely accepted. If it is not made, then debates about private versus public financing will be moot. No one will be going anywhere.
I hope the President will announce a program to send humans to Mars. There are many reasons to justify such an effort. But as I explained at California Yankee and The Command Post, the basic human psychological need to explore is best reason for us to send humans to Mars.
The public's enthusiastic response to Spirit's successful landing on Mars demonstrates that sending humans to Mars can fulfill this need.
This should not be an Apollo like bee-line program. What is needed is a long-term commitment, focusing on building the necessary infrastructure to maintain a human presence on Mars.
I hope the President will announce a program to send humans to Mars. There are many reasons to justify such an effort. But as I explained at California Yankee and The Command Post, the basic human psychological need to explore is best reason for us to send humans to Mars.
The public's enthusiastic response to Spirit's successful landing on Mars demonstrates that sending humans to Mars can fulfill this need.
This should not be an Apollo like bee-line program. What is needed is a long-term commitment, focusing on building the necessary infrastructure to maintain a human presence on Mars.
7622 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com
Posted by: online poker at August 15, 2004 05:45 PM